My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden, For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with His arm: He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree. He has filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He has sent empty away. He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy; As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism. To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the caucus threads, the article and reply posts of an ecumenic thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term gross error in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are for and not what you are against. Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a where theres smoke, theres fire basis. When hostility has broken out on an ecumenic thread, Ill be looking for the source.

Therefore anti posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an anti or ex article under the color of the ecumenic tag.

Posters who try to tear down others beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

Jesus’s divinity is not dependent on Mary’s being sinless. Quite the contrary, the reason for this sinlessness is:

1. in God’s presence, sin cannot stay, it is destroyed.
2. Jesus in the womb was still Jesus Christ, Lord and God.
3. To protect the bearer of God, she had to be made filled with grace and she had to be made free of sin — for her to be able to bear the Lord

Now her own parents being sinful did not affect this as Mary is just a creature, and sinlessness being in contact with sinfulness does not affect sinlessness (e.g. a newborn baby in contact with a sinful mother), but the blazing power of God that destroys anything that is tainted with sin, if that is kept in a box/womb which has even a slight stain of sin, that box/womb will be destroyed.

For He has regarded For He who is mighty has done great things for me He has shown strength He has scattered the proud He has put down the mighty He has filled the hungry the rich He has sent empty away He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy; As He spoke to our fathers

As sung by Mary, God did it all. This list could be sung by any Christian. But Mary makes no mention of being made sinless in this list that I see.

And the numbe rone problem I have with th e pro choice crowd-
is they must deny the fact that the babe in Elizabeths womb leapt for joy when John heard Mary’s voice. A baby at six months after the egg fertilized knew Jesus had been conceived—the Word had become flesh and was tabernacling among us.
Mary responded to the prophetic blessing by Elizabeth in like
manner providing a second witness that Scripture had been fulfilled.

1. in God’s presence, sin cannot stay, it is destroyed.
2. Jesus in the womb was still Jesus Christ, Lord and God.
3. To protect the bearer of God, she had to be made filled with grace and she had to be made free of sin — for her to be able to bear the Lord

now her own parents being sinful did not affect this as mary is just a creature, and sinlessness being in contact with sinfulness does not affect sinlessness (e.g. a newborn baby in contact with a sinful mother), but the blazing power of God that destroys anything that is tainted with sin, if that is kept in a box/womb which has even a slight tain of sin, that box/womb will be destroyed.

Thank you for repeating that message. I would submit premise #1 is flawed.

1. in Gods presence, sin cannot stay, it is destroyed.

The scriptures teach us the Lord Jesus walked among us, yet sin was not destroyed. In the Old Testament our Lord walked among us before the flood. Yet, once again, sin was not destroyed. And, as we find in Peter, Christ descended into hell. Surely if there is one place that sin exist it is in hell.

But the strongest evidence we have that premise 1 is flawed is simply that the Holy Spirit dwells inside every believer.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Therefore, based upon your premise, either every believer would be made sinless like, as you claim, Mary or they would be destroyed. God, in the third person of the Trinity simply could not dwell in them while they have sin and we know we all have sin. This is, of course, unless one does not believe in the Holy Spirit as a person.

While I would agree with your 2nd premise, I find no scriptural support for your 3rd premise either.

3. To protect the bearer of God, she had to be made filled with grace and she had to be made free of sin  for her to be able to bear the Lord

As we can see by the scripture in premise 1, God has been in fact known to dwell among us even in our sinful nature. Clearly our Lord Jesus is an example of this, dwelling on earth with sin all around. He couldn't possibly have been tempted, now could he?

I would submit the whole reason of killing sin isn't the very presence of God. God appears numerous times to people without people dying. God's Holy Spirit indwelt David for David's anointed life-a period of which he plotted and murdered Uriah. Rather the method of killing sin was on Calvary's cross.

And while I appreciate Cronos' interpretation, there was no need for God to "protect the bearer of God" since God did and does in fact dwell among sinful creatures to reconcile us to Him. He did not need to "protect" a person from His wrath.

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

If God was magnified by the Soul of just one human being, and the Gospels tells us that was the case, how could a sin disordered soul magnify perfection?

How does Mary being sinless detract one jot or tittle from your conception of the faith? Contrariwise, why must you insist that the Mother of God was sinfilled to sustain your faith? Even the arch-heresiarch himself, Martin Luther, acknowledged Mary as sinless and a perpetual Virgin.

I would suggest that God is not magnified by us. He is magnified through us.

Scripture teaches that we can do nothing good of ourselves. God bring glory to Himself by working through us. We emulate His light. As Mary acknowledges, "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." God was not magnified by Mary. Rather God was magnified through using Mary. God was glorified. Yet Mary was blessed because people can look back on her as an example of God chosing a person to use.

... how could a sin disordered soul magnify perfection

How can a donkey talk? How can an iron ax float? How can the Red Sea part? God works in ways we cannot understand. The virgin birth was necessary in order for Christ to be stainless from the sins of Adam. This does not mean that Christ could not be surrounded by a sinful world. In fact He was.

...why must you insist that the Mother of God was sinfilled to sustain your faith?

I don't need to insist that Mary was sinful and I certainly don't need it to sustain my faith. The scriptures plainly states that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Mary states that "...my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." And we are told that "All we like sheep have gone astray and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." If Mary is a sheep of God, then she went astray from time to time. It's just what the infallible word of God states. So I can either believe what I read in the unerring word of God or I can believe what sin filled people tell me.

If one will recall the story of Enoch in scripture, here was a person who lived such a wonderful life that the scriptures tells us that God took him. Enoch never saw death. Yet clearly the Church doesn't elevate Enoch to the same level as Mary.

The beauty of Mary is not that God kept her from a sin filled life. Rather the beauty of Mary is that God used her in spite of her fallen nature. He understands our falleness and helps us to understand our fallen nature, so that we might depend on Him to overcome this brokenness.

Even the arch-heresiarch himself, Martin Luther, acknowledged Mary as sinless and a perpetual Virgin.

I'm sure you would acknowledge Martin Luther was wrong on occasions. If he stated this, why would you believe this to be correct?

LOL. Mary and her role in God’s plan, her status as the sinless, perpetual Virgin has been accepted from the Apostles through today by the vast majority of Christians. Splinter sects deny these accepted Truths and word warble about details (and squabble amongst themselves over those details), but mainstream Christendom has NEVER accepted anything less than the Truth.

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Mary and her role in Gods plan, her status as the sinless, perpetual Virgin has been accepted from the Apostles through today by the vast majority of Christians.

I see nothing in the infallible word of God that supports this. John, who took care of Mary after our Lord's death on the cross, stated:

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

and

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

I don't see an exclusion for Mary and please keep in mind these statements were made well after his care of Mary. Clearly he would not have made such a careless remark.

As far as extraneous writings written hundreds of years after the events, one has to remember that only the scriptures have been declared infallible by the Church. Everything else is prone to error.

Splinter sects deny these accepted Truths and word warble about details (and squabble amongst themselves over those details), but mainstream Christendom has NEVER accepted anything less than the Truth.

Aren't we straying from the ecumenical idea a bit? After all, we should be discussing Mary's Magnificant from everyone's view point if we're going to have an ecumenical discussion. That means we should keep to what precisely is written to satisfy us wacky Protestants. Leaving the pages of scripture to venture into Church's teaching is voyeurism.

Now if you want to discuss the infallibility of the Church, I would suggest that is not an ecumenical discussion.

“So perhaps it may be best to be in a tiny minority if it lead to eternal life.”

And yet, from the 1st Century the most respected teachers, preachers and successors of the Apostles disagree with that tiny, fringe teaching. To embrace error is not a path to eternal life.

Magnificat anima mea Dominum

I will greatly rejoice in the LORD,
my soul shall exult in my God;
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
he has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

Isaiah 61:10

Magnificat anima mea Dominum!
Magnify,
Yes, magnify the Lord, O my soul,
Yes my soul magnifies you, O my Lord,
for the glory of being touched by divine Fire,
undeserved,
unearned,
touched only because of your love,
an amazing thing.
Magnificat anima mea Dominum!
O let my soul magnify you, O Lord,
For you dress me in dazzling white.
How precious the garment,
the robe of Your salvation,
of infinite value,
purchased by a price
no mere man could ever pay,
the threads spun in the pain,
and grief,
and blood,
woven in your death,
fulled in the fire
of Your glorious ressurection,
O Son of Man,
O Son of God,
O Lord who emptied himself
To call us home
just for love.
Magnificat anima mea Dominum!

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

“I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.”

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let him who hears say, “Come.” And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price.

You just keep posting the Magnificat. You do not seem interested in addressing the issues that I have raised. The Magnificat is the same song every believer would sing, is it not? Are we not blessed like Mary?

And yet, from the 1st Century the most respected teachers, preachers and successors of the Apostles disagree with that tiny, fringe teaching.

And, no, I have to respectfully disagree with your information. Facts don't back up your historical assertions. There is nothing in 1st century writing that elevates Mary to Co-Redeptix or even sinlessness. Most of this started much later and is counter to scriptural teaching. The Apostles did NOT agree that Mary was sinless. As pointed out in John's letters, he himself makes no exclusions for Mary being sinless.

Thanks, but I'm well aware of history. You may wish to consider this as food for thought:

Act 19:27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship."

Act 19:28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.